Dean For DNC Chair Thread #2

[The Czech Republic 0]

bigolsmitty is a horrible poster.

[Special K 0]

I like Dean. He's an uncompromised, straight talking, sonavabitch who says what he means, means what he says, and raises plenty of valid issues. I Certainly don't want him as prez, though.

 

That said, the Dems are getting in plenty of trouble because let's face it, bland sorta-centrists work best as your spokesersmen (sounds weird) Bush ran his platform on centrism and then went !psyche!, aw man, I just gave my friends too much money. Whoops!

 

I'll take his SS reform though.

 

Honestly, this president is getting us close to nuclear war. I REALLY hope it's not the case. (west coast is first dead, liberal fucks.) Every time I hear a anaolgy about this war, I'm fucked. Nuclear power has fucked EVERYTHING up. N. Korea is the ultimate example of that. This is a backwoods, podunk country, that just might be desperate enough to annighiate us. I wish there had never been an Einstein.

[Guest MikeSC]

bigolsmitty is a horrible poster.

If he opposes bad posting, must he become me?

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

First off, I must say that I am quite happy to see MikeSC back around. Cause, well, it was getting boring around these parts. Hence the non-postings...

 

At any rate...

 

There are a lot of issues with having Howard Dean as the DNC chair. First off, think of the implications of having the lol2004SCREAMODEANOlol as the head. It's an immediate problem. If that weren't enough, half of the party can not stand him. He's just magnetic.

 

However, that is also one of the reasons as to why I think he should and WILL be the DNC Chair. He has the ability to draw people towards him. He is not as liberal as most people think he is (look at his economic record). Socially, yes he is a liberal. But he may just have the right mix to make him different enough from the Republicans and not as wishy-washy as the Democrats are now.

 

The problems with the Democratic party is that they have failed to define themselves as anything. Rather than being steadfast in old party beliefs, some of them have turned into the "Hey, we're not Republican!" crowd. It's why they lost. They didn't have a platform to stand upon. All they had was negativity. And negativity is not something people want to vote for. Think about Bush's Social Security program. Privitization, I believe, is not the answer. I have my own ideas as to how this thing could be fixed (ahem, raise taxes. See that deficit? See that national debt? Will it EVER get paid off at this rate? Didn't think so.), but I digress. The point here is that the Democrats, instead of giving options for people to think about, merely say that this that and the other thing is wrong, and they'll vote against it. Well, what the HELL do you propose? Where is YOUR idea? This is how the Republicans gained Capitol Hill back in the '90s. Instead of just pissing and moaning all the time about everything, they gave people OPTIONS. They had ideas and plans. And, as it turned out, the majority of people were for it. I'm still not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans are as conservative as it seems through the vote. But because the Democratic party failed horrifically to be able to put themselves together and say something productive, give people options, and not run as either A.) the anti-Republicans or B.) Republican-Ice (because they don't even deserve the Lite tag), people voted for the ones who had something to say. The party that stood it's ground. The Republican Party was just flat out better at defining itself and what it stood for.

 

Really, I think some of the TSM posters could have done a better job coming up with a platform for the Democrats to run on that holds true to liberalism, and you would have seen a far more drastic result back in November.

 

At any rate, however, Dean should be the DNC head. He's probably not presidential material...yet. But then again, who in the hell can they dig up for '08...fuck '08, just worry about the midterm elections at this point. Without some gains during that election, the Dems are in a hole and a half. And I don't want to think about what in the hell would happen if they lose more seats...

 

--Ryan

...still trying to be optimistic and positive...and if all else fails?...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The way I see it, people will always see the Democrats as The Leftist Party, no matter where they're positioned. If they're a centerist in world politics (which they currently are), they're the leftist party. If they're trying to do that Republican US-conservative wannabe thing, they're the leftist party.

 

It does not matter to try and avoid labels as there's a stigma there that exists no matter where they are on the spectrum. The only real goal is to make sure that they're still right to the Greens, because the other stigma is that any party further to the left of the Democrats is nuts.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think politicians are too obsessed with where they fall on an imaginary line.

 

While overall I consider myself a liberal, I know there have been plenty of times when I've disagreed with the "liberal establishment". Just because an idea has an origin with conservatives doesn't make it bad.

 

The country would be a lot better off if politicians would stick to talking about the merit of specific ideas, rather than positioning their opponents on a line that most people don't even understand anyways.

 

I like President Bush a lot better when he's out there trying to sell people on the merits of his Social Security plan, rather than when he was out there telling people not to vote for Kerry because he was a "liberal".

 

People criticizing Bush for being to far right aren't doing themselves any favors, since they're not actually giving a reason. They're just labelling, and expecting the negative stigma attached to the label do the work for them.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cite one.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/

52% say it was not a mistake, according to that poll. Meaning less than half say it was a mistake. And, there is no reason to believe that the number will drop.

 

So, you might want to cite one that actually proves the point he was trying to make.

-=Mike

Um. No. It says 52% thought it was a mistake. See this page. And have you been studying Cerebus' suggestions?

 

Fifty-two percent of respondents said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq versus 47 percent with the opposite view.

Yup, you're right.

 

Too bad new polls have it down to 49% opposed.

 

And your attempts at humor are insanely shitty. But, so is your posting, so it's consistent.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

bigolsmitty is a horrible poster.

 

I'll show you horrible poster!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BTW, smitty, I oppose crime. Must I become a cop now?

           -=Mike

I just think that if you believe in something that strongly, then you should be willing to sacrifice something to support it. Lots of other young men are making huge sacrifices over there. During WWII, assloads of young men were signing up left and right because they believed in the cause.

 

Crime is something that happens all the time. Everyone is against crime. Not everyone vehemently supports wars.

 

So yes, I am saying that, if you are a young, healthy man and you strongly believe in a war, then you should sign up to go fight it.

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, smitty, I oppose crime. Must I become a cop now?

          -=Mike

I just think that if you believe in something that strongly, then you should be willing to sacrifice something to support it. Lots of other young men are making huge sacrifices over there. During WWII, assloads of young men were signing up left and right because they believed in the cause.

 

Crime is something that happens all the time. Everyone is against crime. Not everyone vehemently supports wars.

 

So yes, I am saying that, if you are a young, healthy man and you strongly believe in a war, then you should sign up to go fight it.

So, because you're not a cop, you are gung-ho in support of crime?

 

Got it.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

I think it's unfair to say someone can't be in support of a war without physically participating in it. That's why we have soldiers who do a brave and honorable duty. Honestly, I think they are much more skilled and brave and overall better people then myself and I trust them to do their job and support them in their missions.

 

It's actually an apt comparison Mike uses, as cops and firefighters are put in dangerous situations every day and many lose their lives in the line of duty, but they serve our society in ways that not everyone has the qualifications or physical or mental makeup to perform. It's silly to think that because not everyone is actively participating in the fighting of crime or fire that we can't be in support of tougher crime or anti-fire measures.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think it's okay to support a war and not automatically sign up in it.

 

I think if you get to the point where you're so completely caught up in the war that you exhibit the kind of emotional passion for it that Mike does, whereupon you say that you would enjoy killing evildoers that have shrugged off their humanity, it's time to either suit up or deal with people calling you chickenhawk.

[Styles 0]

whereupon you say that you would enjoy being out there killing the enemy,

OK, well I'll let you two fight it out on that point. But, just in general, support of the reasons behind the war and confidence in the men and women who are fighting it without yourself signing up shouldn't be contrued as hypocricy.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think it's okay to support a war and not automatically sign up in it.

 

I think if you get to the point where you're so completely caught up in the war that you exhibit the kind of emotional passion for it that Mike does, whereupon you say that you would enjoy killing evildoers that have shrugged off their humanity, it's time to either suit up or deal with people calling you chickenhawk.

Do you think rape is bad?

 

Then you should be a cop stopping it.

 

Otherwise, you're just a "chickenhawk", right?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think rape is bad.

 

But if I was so passionate that I would be pleasured by lining up rapists and shooting them all dead, then I'd probably go through the proper channels to deal with this. Well, either that or go see a psych about my aggression first.

[MrRant 0]

Well, get into corrections and then become a warden and then you'll be able to pull the switch.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think rape is bad.

 

But if I was so passionate that I would be pleasured by lining up rapists and shooting them all dead, then I'd probably go through the proper channels to deal with this. Well, either that or go see a psych about my aggression first.

Then you don't care about rape that much.

 

Got it.

-=Mike

[MrRant 0]

Hey...

 

She was askin' for it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You can be against rape like anyone else, or you can be against rape to the extent where you're going through the state's sex offender list and writing addresses so you can go around strangling them in their sleep.

[MrRant 0]

Hey...

 

He was askin' for it.

[Guest Brian]

I actually once nearly cut off a pimp's dick for the way he disrespected women. I'm not a chickenhawk, right.

[Styles 0]

I actually once nearly cut off a pimp's dick for the way he disrespected women. I'm not a chickenhawk, right.

You only nearly did it, you haughty, house up on a tower living coward...

[Guest Brian]

We had to keep him intact for the cops to pick him up.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BTW, smitty, I oppose crime. Must I become a cop now?

           -=Mike

I just think that if you believe in something that strongly, then you should be willing to sacrifice something to support it. Lots of other young men are making huge sacrifices over there. During WWII, assloads of young men were signing up left and right because they believed in the cause.

 

Crime is something that happens all the time. Everyone is against crime. Not everyone vehemently supports wars.

 

So yes, I am saying that, if you are a young, healthy man and you strongly believe in a war, then you should sign up to go fight it.

So, because you're not a cop, you are gung-ho in support of crime?

 

Got it.

-=Mike

Crime is something that happens all the time. Everyone is against crime. Not everyone vehemently supports wars.

 

Things like crime, rape, disease, tyranny, etc. are things happen continually and that all normal people agree are bad. I don't think that everyone should have to become a doctor/police officer/freedom fighter because these things are bad.

 

War, however, is not continous and everyone doesn't always agree upon it. Fighting in a war is a major commitment, but unlike becoming a doctor or police officer, it doesn't require a lifetime or a career commitment. It would take the commitment of a few years of one's life probably, but if the war is that worthy and noble then that time would be well worth it. If you think the war's cause is just enough that it would be worth sacrificing the lives of your peers, then you should be willing to make the same sacrifice.

 

Or keep your mouth shut.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think they are much more skilled and brave and overall better people then myself

 

You could become skilled! They offer training, ya know, they don't just throw you out on the battlefield.

 

So your excuses for not signing up to serve in Iraq are that you are not very brave and not a very good person.

 

Judges? *glances over shoulder*

 

We'll accept that answer.

[Guest sek69]

Back to the orginal topic, it seems like Republicans and the corporate centrist boring-ass Dems are shitting their pants over Dean. I've never seen the right go after a DNC chair like this before.

 

Sure, they went after Terry Mac, but this obsessiveness over Dean seems to have unmatched fervor. I think it's worrying some people that an "outsider" worked his way into the system.

 

I have to laugh when I hear folks like Hannity threatening to "reveal" Dean's record as if it's going to be this extreme far left agenda when as Vermont gov he actually got heat for being too pro business and got good marks from the NRA. Yet he's a far left kook because he ran Vermont and apparently that makes you a kook no matter what the actual record says.

[Guest MikeSC]

You can be against rape like anyone else, or you can be against rape to the extent where you're going through the state's sex offender list and writing addresses so you can go around strangling them in their sleep.

If you aren't willing to tackle the problem at all yourself, then you shouldn't say a word, right?

 

That's the message going around here.

War, however, is not continous and everyone doesn't always agree upon it. Fighting in a war is a major commitment, but unlike becoming a doctor or police officer, it doesn't require a lifetime or a career commitment.

Dead soldiers, likely, would disagree.

If you think the war's cause is just enough that it would be worth sacrificing the lives of your peers, then you should be willing to make the same sacrifice.

 

Or keep your mouth shut.

And, using this logic, if you think crime is bad, you should either sacrifice or never once mention it.

I have to laugh when I hear folks like Hannity threatening to "reveal" Dean's record as if it's going to be this extreme far left agenda when as Vermont gov he actually got heat for being too pro business and got good marks from the NRA. Yet he's a far left kook because he ran Vermont and apparently that makes you a kook no matter what the actual record says.

No, he's a far left kook based solely on the asinine things he's said in life.

-=Mike

[Guest sek69]

No, he's a far left kook based solely on the asinine things he's said in life.

-=Mike

 

 

The irony is crushing......

[Guest MikeSC]

 

No, he's a far left kook based solely on the asinine things he's said in life.

-=Mike

The irony is crushing......

You don't see me running the RNC --- so you might need a firm grasp of what irony is.

 

And you, of all people, might wish to avoid making such statements.

-=Mike

[Guest sek69]

Weren't you supposed to be leaving again anyway?

 

I won't even dignify your post with a response considering there's a page and a half or so of you trying to justify not signing up to serve despite how gung-ho your are.